[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10626-10640]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 320 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2219.

                              {time}  1910


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2219) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Mack (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
the bill had been read through page 161, line 12.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues to 
ensure that our defense community has the resources necessary to carry 
out an important security mandate that this body passed this year.
  Mr. Chairman, the Lord's Resistance Army has terrorized central 
Africa for 25 years. But last year, Congress and the administration 
took unprecedented steps to end the group's campaign of violence. This 
body passed broadly supported bipartisan legislation called the Lord's 
Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act requiring 
the administration to prepare and present to Congress a comprehensive 
strategy to bring LRA commanders to justice.
  Mr. Chairman, with the administration's strategy released in 
November, we should move to implement an international strategy to help 
end the atrocities committed by the LRA, protect innocent civilians, 
and stabilize a region of Africa that is critical to the United States' 
national security interests.
  Through over 20 years of civil war, this brutal insurgency has 
created a humanitarian crisis that has displaced over 1\1/2\ million 
people and resulted in the abduction of over 20,000 children in one of 
the world's most difficult ungoverned spaces.
  With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), who is continuing to take a lead role in this 
international effort, which I appreciate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his support 
of this international imperative.
  The LRA has terrorized civilians and abducted tens of thousands of 
children, many of whom have been forced into child soldiering or sex 
slavery. Its influence spans the border area of south Sudan, the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic. It is 
the deadliest rebel group in Congo and has displaced hundreds of 
thousands of people across central Africa, including in south Sudan, 
where U.S. investments in peace and stability are critical as the 
region establishes independence this Saturday.
  Mr. Chairman, we could have a decisive impact on seeing one of 
Africa's most longstanding human rights crises finally brought to an 
end by implementing the administration's plan.
  I yield back to the gentleman from Nebraska in the hopes that we 
implement this strategy.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his 
leadership again.
  My colleagues and I believe that resources invested in ending this 
conflict now will not only save innocent lives but will also help 
reduce the need for very expensive humanitarian aid and promote 
stability in one of Africa's most volatile regions.
  With that said, I would like to yield to our chairman, the gentleman 
from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I thank the gentlemen, both, for their attention to this important 
issue. And I want to continue to work with them as we move this bill 
forward in the hopes that we can bring a swift end and successful end 
to this tragedy.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.


                Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 376 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 10627]]


  Mr. DeFAZIO. My colleagues, in 1990 Congress passed a law that 
required that all Federal agencies, including the Department of 
Defense, must have auditable financial statements every year. Since 
that time, the Department of Defense has spent $10 trillion--$10,000 
billion--and yet no audit has been conducted. In fact, there are 
numerous problems with accounting at DOD, and their financial 
management has been rated as ``high risk'' by the Government 
Accountability Office.
  Unfortunately, the Pentagon, being incapable of being audited, sought 
an exemption from audits.
  So in 2005, Congress passed a ban on completing an audit. It was 
contained in section 376 of the 2006 National Defense Authorization 
Act.
  In 2009, Congress got tough and they said, ``Look, we've exempted you 
from audits. But let's have a goal--not a mandate--a goal of you doing 
an audit by 2017. Yet last September in a hearing Pentagon officials 
stated that meeting a deadline of 2017 for having their first ever 
audit of their books, and they will spend $4 trillion between now and 
2017 without an audit, they said they would need more money, more money 
to be auditable. That's chutzpah. That's incredible.
  So what we're attempting to do here tonight is to say that we're 
going to suspend the exemption. The DOD, it's time for them to get 
their books in order. There is nothing more important for our men and 
women in uniform than to know that every dollar, every precious tax 
dollar is being spent properly to give them the tools they need to 
defend our Nation. And the taxpayers of this country, concerned about 
our massive deficit and the concerns that are being expressed here in 
these deficit and debt talks downtown, the taxpayers need to know that 
we're not wasting money in the single largest annual account of the 
Federal budget which is not audited, the expenditures of the Pentagon.
  In fiscal year 2010, half of DOD's contract awards were not competed. 
That's half. In 140 billion of them, there was no competition at all, 
and in 48 billion, there was one, one competitor. So we have a lot of 
work to do here.
  In 2000, the Pentagon Inspector General found that of $7.6 trillion 
in accounting errors of entries, $2.3 trillion ``were not supported by 
adequate audit trails or sufficient evidence to determine their 
validity.'' We don't know where that $2.3 trillion went. Now, come on.
  It's time to stop treating them with kid gloves. The Pentagon's a 
tough institution, the toughest Department of Defense in the world. And 
it's time for them to own up here and audit their books and trace every 
dollar. It's a new era. So I urge my colleagues to support this by 
defunding this special exemption. Then the Pentagon will be subject to 
audit over the next year, which could provide tremendous benefits to 
our men and women in uniform and certainly tremendous savings for the 
American taxpayers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'm just not sure how this 
amendment accomplishes what the gentleman says since it prohibits 
enforcement of a section of a fiscal year 2006 bill, which only applied 
to that fiscal year. So I'm not opposed to the amendment; I just don't 
believe it does anything.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT. I rise today in support of this amendment and one which 
I have also cosponsored with the gentleman.
  This amendment, quite honestly, is common sense, in that it simply 
looks to add accountability in how the Pentagon spends our taxpayers' 
dollars. Now, the GAO released an independent audit that they performed 
in March that concluded that the cost of the Pentagon's largest 
programs has risen by $135 billion--that's over 9 percent--to $1.68 
trillion by 2008. And as was pointed out, over half of that, or $70 
billion of that, involves overruns. And what they say in their report 
appeared ``to be indicative of production problems and inefficiencies 
or flawed initial cost estimates.''
  Since then, we have not had a complete audit by the Pentagon, and 
since then, overruns have only multiplied.
  Just this past week, earlier in the week, I had the opportunity to 
serve in the Budget Committee, where we had the CBO come in. And we 
asked them point blank for some of the information that we would like 
to have with regard to these audits, that we would like the information 
from them so they could pinpoint some of the, as we always say on the 
floor, the waste, fraud, and abuse that goes on. But more specifically, 
where the inefficiencies are. And the answer we got from them was 
somewhat telling. They said they cannot supply this Congress with the 
information that we would like because they do not get the information 
themselves from the DOD. And that is the problem.

                              {time}  1920

  That is the problem. The Department of Defense is consistently 
overbudget in acquisition and equipment modernization. There are 92 
major defense acquisition programs. Seventy-five percent of them are 
overbudget. Twenty percent of them are overbudget by more than 50 
percent.
  Mr. Chairman, this is something that needs to be addressed. This 
amendment will once again hold the Pentagon accountable, assuring that 
the taxpayer dollars are spent prudently, as intended. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would like, at this time, to ask the chairman 
to participate in a colloquy with me.
  I rise today to express my concern about our strategic ports. First, 
I want to thank the chairman for discussing this important issue with 
me. I think the chairman would agree that understanding and addressing 
vital infrastructure needs at our strategic seaports is of major 
importance.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would tell him that I do agree that assessing and correcting 
infrastructure problems at the Nation's strategic seaports, which are 
an integral part of our national defense readiness, is of vital 
importance.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Since 1958, the strategic seaport program has 
facilitated the movement of military forces securely through U.S. 
ports. Each strategic seaport has individual capabilities that provide 
the Department of Defense with the port facilities and services that 
are critical in maintaining the operational flexibility and redundancy 
needed to meet a wide range of national security missions and time 
lines. However, the existing infrastructure at many of the strategic 
ports may no longer be adequate to meet the needs of our military. I 
think the time has come to address these needs in both our 
authorization and appropriations process. That is why I worked with 
Chairman McKeon to include language in the defense authorization bill 
that will require a study of the infrastructure needs of these 
strategic ports. Once that study has been conducted, I believe it is of 
vital importance that this committee provide the necessary funding to 
address the needs of these ports.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I also believe these ports to be 
critical to our defense, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman 
from Alaska to consider the appropriate measures and funding to address

[[Page 10628]]

the infrastructure needs of our strategic seaports.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to thank the chairman for discussing this 
issue with me. I would just like to say to the chairman, I appreciate 
the fact that you recognize the importance of ports to move our 
products. I know that the ranking member does, also. I again thank you.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BECERRA. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman and 
ranking member on recruitment and outreach at the military service 
academies.
  Mr. Chairman, some areas in the U.S. have been harder for the 
military academies to reach for recruitment purposes than others. To 
ease this problem, the Congress should work to ensure that the military 
academies have the ability to reach out to men and women from 
underrepresented rural and urban areas.
  Past outreach efforts have been effective at the military academies. 
For example, in the U.S. Naval Academy's increased outreach efforts, we 
have seen results that show that some 19,145 applicants have come out 
for the class of 2015, an increase of 25 percent over the past 2 years. 
The Navy has been able to conduct recruitment blitzes in parts of the 
country that were traditionally underrepresented. In my home State of 
California, the Navy increased their applicants by 25 percent, from 
some 2,400 for the class of 2013 to over 3,000 for the class of 2015.
  I believe it is important for the academies to have the resources to 
continue building upon this success. This critical investment would 
help America find the best and the brightest for our military and for 
America's future.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I agree with the gentleman that it is important that the military 
academies bring in the best young people from across the country, and 
the committee will work with him toward this objective.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. DICKS. I agree with the chairman and stand ready to work with the 
gentleman--and I commend him for the work that he's been doing over the 
years--to reach out to all regions of the country to bring the best and 
brightest into the military academies.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the ranking member and the chairman, and I look 
forward to working with them.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 1.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amount otherwise made available by this Act 
     for ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' is hereby 
     reduced by $250,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
  This amendment would reduce the operations and maintenance defense-
wide account by $250 million, the same amount appropriated by section 
8122 of the bill. Section 8122 appropriates another $250 million in 
FY12 for the Secretary of Defense to use for the Office of Economic 
Adjustment, or to transfer to the Secretary of Education to make grants 
to public schools located on military bases for construction, 
renovation and repairs.
  I will just summarize what's happening here. We have some schools 
that are on military bases. Now, some of the schools on military bases 
are run by the Department of Defense. That's not what we're speaking 
about here. The schools that we're talking about here, LEAs, Local 
Education Agencies, run them. In the FY11 budget, we appropriated $250 
million of defense money--this is in the Defense bill--to go to schools 
that are the responsibility of Local Education Agencies.
  Now, some of these schools are in disrepair. They're in bad shape. 
Nobody's questioning that. Education budgets are tight everywhere 
around the country. Ask your own States. Ask your local school 
districts. But we cannot continue to divert money from the Department 
of Defense simply because that's where money is and few people question 
it. I'm sure the gentleman will stand up here and say, hey, these 
schools are in bad shape; they're on military bases; we've got to fix 
them, and the Local Education Agencies have said these schools are in 
disrepair. But why are we taking money that should be going to the 
military, to the troops, to other purposes, and diverting it to local 
education or local schools that are the responsibility of Local 
Education Agencies?
  I have here one of the contracts for one of these schools that is 
being discussed here. It says: The permittee or his designee shall, at 
his own cost and expense, protect, preserve, maintain, repair and keep 
in good order and condition these schools.
  This is a Local Education Agency, not the Department of Defense. That 
shouldn't be the responsibility of the Department of Defense, and we're 
bleeding off $250 million.
  I'm sure the gentleman will stand up and say this is needed, this 
isn't going to be a continual thing, we've just got to bring these 
schools up to repair. They'll say that the Department of Defense has 
said that these schools are in disrepair. They are. Nobody is 
questioning that. The question is: Where should this money come from? 
And if we have this kind of money to throw around for defense, then we 
ought to be cutting more defense funding.
  This funding, if there's a problem, it should go through the Local 
Education Agencies, or convince the Federal Department of Education 
through Impact Aid to send money to these schools, but not the 
Department of Defense. That has been the practice, unfortunately, 
around here for quite a while now.
  We say, all right, what account can we take money from, for earmarks 
or whatever else, that few people will question? It's defense spending. 
We take that off for education or research or whatever else, and pretty 
soon we're diverting a lot of money that should go to the troops to 
other purposes.

                              {time}  1930

  Like I said, nobody's questioning that these schools are in bad 
repair. Newsweek ran an article on June 27 that said 39 percent of the 
schools run by the public systems on Army installations fell in the 
failing or poor category. I don't question that. Nobody does. What's at 
question here is another $250 million.
  As I said, we appropriated in the FY11 budget $250 million. So 
apparently this is going to become a standard practice now? And then 
you start to get the prospect of Members of Congress starting to submit 
their local bases, saying, hey, the schools there are bad, and we get 
into the old earmarking game by letter, or phone marking, or whatever 
else, because it will be the spoils system all over again as to who 
gets the defense money to actually fix these schools. So this would 
simply say this money, $250 million that has been requested for this 
purpose, shall not be spent.
  The gentleman may stand up and say, hey, this is generally taken from 
the Department of Defense, or from the operations and maintenance, and 
so that's not specific enough. Believe me, the Secretary of Defense, if 
they have the choice to fund the troops or the schools, will fund the 
troops because the schools are under the responsibility of the local 
education agency. The Department of Defense may submit a list and say 
these schools are in disrepair, but it's not the responsibility of the 
Department of Defense to fund these schools.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 10629]]


  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The gentleman was quite good at making the cases against 
this amendment, but I will have to reiterate some of the things. First 
of all, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The bill 
provides an additional $250 million to improve or replace inadequate 
schools located on Department of Defense bases that are operated by 
Local Education Authorities and the Department of Education. Most of 
these are run by the local authorities.
  The Army has identified 80 Local Education Authority-operated schools 
within the continental United States that are inadequate because of 
poor conditions or a lack of capacity to accommodate the number of 
students enrolled. Initial funding in the fiscal year 2011 bill will 
address approximately 13 of these schools.
  Nearly 42,000 school-aged dependents of U.S. service personnel are 
enrolled in schools on DOD bases that are owned and operated by either 
LEAs or the U.S. Department of Education. The recommendation is based 
on former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's remarks to military spouses 
at a May 8, 2010, town hall meeting at Fort Riley, Kansas. The 
Secretary then called me as chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee last year and said, Norm, we've got to do something about 
these schools. We have these young men and women serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them worried 
about their children because some of these schools, if there was a 
hurricane, if there was an earthquake, if there was a lahar from Mount 
Rainier, these schools could go down.
  I have walked out there and seen these schools at Joint Base Lewis-
McChord. And one of the conditions, if you are going to get money here, 
is that you must take over the school. The local school districts are 
going to have to take them over from this point forward. So we will get 
out of the responsibility, but we have to bring these schools up to 
code and standards and rebuild most of them. This list was developed by 
the Army, and then the Navy and Air Force and Marine Corps also were 
involved.
  The former Secretary indicated that his plan to improve schools 
requires congressional approval. Caring for the dependents of U.S. 
service personnel is a vital contributor to military quality of life 
and represents a prudent investment in our Nation's future. I urge my 
colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Let me also say in the military construction bill there was $463 
million for schools that are owned by the Department of Defense. Many 
of these schools are overseas, in other countries; and yet we are 
putting $463 million into those schools. At the same time, the 
gentleman from Arizona wants to deny the young people of our country 
schools that they could go into. There is one in Arizona. The gentleman 
is running for the other body. I think he would be concerned about the 
school in Arizona that may not get funded if this amendment passes. And 
I hope the people of Arizona remember it, because the people of 
Washington State will certainly remember it. This is a bad amendment. 
We should defeat it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I will not yield.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment and associate my 
remarks with those of the ranking member. We are talking about the 
dependents of the U.S. military. And when you visit military bases, 
some of these schools are deplorable. When we make a commitment to a 
young person in the military, and they are married and they have 
children, they ought to be able to go to schools on their military base 
that are of high standards.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman if he wishes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I should mention the gentleman from Washington mentioned that the 
Secretary of Defense said we have got to do something about these 
schools. I should note that this was not in the Defense request. If he 
thought something ought to be done, you would think that they would 
have put it in their request. They didn't. It wasn't in the 
authorization bill. There is a Department of Education program, a 
competitive program for this already. If we think that it should have 
more money, then it should.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from 
Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. They don't have any money. The Department of Education 
can't fund this because the new majority is taking a lot of the money 
out of the Department of Education that they would use for this 
purpose, and they don't have the money. That's why the Secretary called 
us and said--and this is Fort Riley, Kansas, one of your side, a school 
in the district of a Republican Member--and he said we've got to do 
something.
  We didn't say we will do this on a partisan basis. We said, hey, 
these men and women in these Stryker brigades are over in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them be worried 
about their children in these schools that could go down if we had an 
earthquake. And we have had all these natural disasters all over this 
country. And I just say to the gentleman this is the most ridiculous 
amendment I have heard of yet. And he has had some lulus. And I just 
hope we can defeat this amendment so the people of this country will 
know we care about our kids serving in the military and their families.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, American children have 
already been the victims of the Republicans' inaction and spending 
cuts, and now the Republicans are specifically targeting the children 
of military families. The Flake Amendment to H.R. 2219 cuts $250 
million of critical funding for public schools on military 
installations.
  These schools and families are already in dire need of support. 
Impact aid is provided to these schools as compensation for the federal 
activities that render them unable to collect property or other taxes 
to fund these schools. This is one of the oldest education programs 
administered in the United States, and these schools and families 
depend on these funds.
  The men and women of our armed services make great sacrifices to keep 
our country safe. They deserve better from this Congress. They do not 
deserve to have their children's education sacrificed as well. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Flake amendment to cut impact aid.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 2.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  The amount otherwise provided by title IX for 
     ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' is hereby 
     reduced by $3,577,192,676.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. This amendment is straightforward. It will simply reduce 
the amount appropriated to the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer 
Fund by roughly $3.5 billion. We often hear in this body the 
Constitution grants the Congress the power of the purse, that the 
President's budget is not sacrosanct, and that Members should be able 
to guide Federal spending. I agree with that.

[[Page 10630]]

  So I was quite surprised that the committee included in this bill an 
appropriation of $5 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operation 
Transfer Fund, but provided virtually no guidance on how it should be 
spent beyond requiring that any obligations be, quote, pursuant to the 
global war on terrorism. That's roughly 4 percent of the overall cost 
of the war spending portion of this bill.
  I understand the funding could provide the Department of Defense with 
a little more flexibility as it moves ahead with operations in 
Afghanistan, while simultaneously withdrawing troops from Afghanistan 
and Iraq. I am sympathetic to the need to properly fund the war in a 
way that requires us to budget for it.

                              {time}  1940

  But this $5 billion with very few strings attached could also be used 
for just about anything, including, as a bargaining chip, for 
negotiations with the Senate, according to the CQ Today article, which 
ran on June 14.
  I would submit that it's an expensive bargaining chip, and it's a 
very risky gamble, in my view. The President recently announced his 
intent to withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which I think 
he will make the case for in the months ahead. And the Department of 
Defense has some flexibility as we move ahead in the months ahead.
  So I think it's fair to reduce the amount appropriated in this fund 
to roughly $1.5 billion. That amounts to 1 percent of the war-related 
costs of the bill instead of 4 percent. Oversees Contingency Operations 
Transfer Funds have been requested in the past by the Department of 
Defense. I understand that. I think we all understand that, to give the 
Department of Defense some flexibility.
  What I am saying here is, $5 billion is a little too much flexibility 
here. Let's regain our prerogative here to direct this money, to have 
the power of the purse and simply not allow that amount, $5 billion. 
That would simply reduce it to $1.5 billion.
  According to CQ Today, the Army requested about $2 billion for 
transportation expenses in Afghanistan. The House panel said that 
funding need was overstated because the Army was assuming all supplies 
are flown into that country, when only about 20 percent arrive by air.
  I commend the committee for carefully drilling down on the requests 
submitted by the services and identifying places where funding is 
unjustified and unneeded. However, instead of pulling back all the 
money in what could become a slush fund, we should do better. We should 
take steps to simply make sure that money that doesn't have to be spent 
is not spent.
  That's what this amendment does. I urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman from 
Arizona's amendment, which would cut $3.6 billion from the Overseas 
Contingencies Operations budget.
  The committee believes that the Army's fiscal year 2012 operation and 
maintenance requests for Overseas Contingencies Operations may be 
overstated due to unrealistic planning assumptions. However, due to the 
great deal of uncertainty of the justification for the Army's O&M 
budget request, the committee added an appropriations account, the 
Overseas Contingencies Operations Transfer Fund Account, and shifted $5 
billion of funding from the Army into this account.
  This account gives the Secretary of Defense flexibility to reprogram 
these funds for unforeseen requirements which emerged during 2012. For 
example, if redeployment from Afghanistan were to be accelerated--and 
some would suggest it should be--there will be a very significant 
increase in personnel and equipment transportation costs in fiscal year 
2012.
  Examples of requirements, which emerged during the year of budget 
execution in prior years, include funding for the MRAP vehicles, the 
mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, additional body armor that 
was needed, and other force protection things, joint, what we call 
joint urgent operational needs. And, of course, there are always spikes 
in fuel costs.
  So for these and many other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the 
amendment and urge others to do so as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for--
       (1) deploying members of the Armed Forces on to the ground 
     of Libya for the purposes of engaging in military operations 
     unless the purpose of such deployment is limited solely to 
     rescuing members of the United States Armed Forces;
       (2) awarding a contract to a private security contractor to 
     conduct any activity on the ground of Libya; or
       (3) otherwise establishing or maintaining any presence of 
     members of the Armed Forces or private security contractors 
     on the ground of Libya unless the purpose of such deployment 
     is limited solely to rescuing members of the United States 
     Armed Forces.

  Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise with the assistance of my good 
friends, Tom McClintock of California, Lynn Woolsey of California, and 
Barbara Lee of California.
  It is my Libyan amendment, again, which would prevent funds 
appropriated in this act from being used to deploy any type of ground 
troop presence for the purpose of pursuing military operations on 
Libyan territory.
  This amendment would simply codify the policy endorsed by President 
Obama and the international community and thereby ensure that our 
involvement in Libya remains limited in scope.
  An identical amendment passed this House on May 26 by a vote of 416-5 
as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
  It's also the intent of this amendment, as it was in my earlier 
amendment, that funds would be allowed to be used to rescue members of 
the Armed Forces participating in the NATO no-fly zone operation.
  The American people, obviously many of them, have grown weary of the 
open-ended military conflicts that place our troops in harm's way and 
add billions to our national debt. We simply cannot afford another 
Afghanistan or Iraq.
  And so the time has come for Congress to once again exercise its 
constitutional authority to place boundaries on the use of our military 
forces overseas and clearly state that this conflict in Libya will not 
escalate into an expensive occupation that would strain our resources 
and harm our national security interests.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We would like to commend you for your amendment, 
and we would be willing to accept it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 10631]]


  Ms. WOOLSEY. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
good friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) which I am very proud to be a 
cosponsor.
  The war in Libya, which was not authored by this body or our Senate 
colleagues, has lingered for more than 100 days.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the legal contortions coming from the other end 
of Pennsylvania Avenue, the dropping of bombs, the killing of 
civilians, and the use of drones in Libya most definitely constitutes 
hostilities. And it's our responsibility in the Congress to make sure 
that these hostilities do not escalate into a full-blown ground war 
with boots on the ground and the United States becoming an occupying 
force in Libya.
  The President has assured us that this won't happen, and I believe 
that a ground war is not his intention. But it wouldn't be the first 
time, Mr. Chairman, in the history of the United States' warfare that 
there was a shift in military, with the military campaign beginning as 
one thing and ending up as quite another. So it's critical that we 
assert ourselves using the congressional authority to appropriate funds 
to say ``no'' to launching a third ground war.
  Our authority rests on how we use the people's money. Today's 
amendment denies the use of our tax dollars to send troops into Libya.
  The war in Libya is a war of choice, except it's one that Americans 
didn't choose. It's not one that their elected representatives here in 
the people's House and Senate chose either.
  We must ensure it does not go any further. We must listen to our 
people--the people who sent us here, the people we work for--who are 
insisting that we set limits. They know that we can't afford another 
Libya becoming another Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Are these the values that we celebrated over this patriotic holiday 
weekend? Permanent warfare that leads to mayhem, despair and 
instability without advancing our national interests? It's time we 
start embracing the principles of smart security--humanitarian aid and 
civilian support--instead of perpetual warfare.
  Haven't we had enough? Haven't our troops proven their valor? Haven't 
military families proven their selflessness and sacrifice? Haven't the 
taxpayers parted with enough of their money?
  Vote ``yes'' on the Conyers-McClintock-Woolsey-Lee amendment. Say no 
to ground troops in Libya.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I would like to ask Subcommittee Chairman Young if he 
would enter into a colloquy regarding the Department of Defense's 
future plans for data storage.

                              {time}  1950

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy on 
behalf of Chairman Young with you, sir.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. As the chairman is aware and as you are 
aware, the Department of Defense has many cybersecurity goals and 
challenges. With the daily reports on cyberattacks and intrusions, I 
feel that Congress needs to express its concerns before there is a 
cyberevent that will impact and damage national security.
  The Department of Defense is the world's largest target for 
cyberattacks. There are many aspects of cyberdefense infrastructure, 
but I would like to focus on one critical piece, the physical location 
of classified data. I'm very concerned that the Department of Defense 
will not weigh the physical storage of classified data sufficiently in 
their efforts to save money through the consolidation and modernization 
of the information technology infrastructure. In addition, I worry that 
unnecessarily storing classified data abroad could increase the risk 
that this information could be stolen, damaging national security and 
potentially harming our troops.
  I would ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with me to 
ensure that the Department of Defense's future plans for data storage 
address these concerns and maintain the highest standards for 
protection for classified data. Keeping critical defense data under 
positive control and physically securing that data is just common sense 
for national security. Building and operating data centers here will 
create American jobs as well as make it easier to control access and 
make it harder for foreign operatives to steal things such as nuclear 
secrets, weapons systems designs, and battle plans.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Chairman Young and the committee thank the 
gentleman from Illinois for bringing this matter to our attention, and 
we share his concern for the protection of all classified data. We 
believe the threat from cyberattacks is real and is growing. We commend 
the gentleman for his leadership in this area, and we will be happy to 
work with you and the ranking member to ensure that our troops and 
Nation maintain control of all classified data.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. DICKS. I think the gentleman from Illinois brings up a very 
important issue, and I too look forward to working with the gentleman 
to ensure that classified data is protected from misuse and theft. 
Cybersecurity may be the most important defense issue that we face in 
the coming years. The Department of Defense itself is hit 250,000 times 
per hour, which is unbelievable, but it's true. And so we need to work 
on this, and I'm glad the gentleman has taken an interest in this 
important subject.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks 
for their commitment to the troops and national security, and I know 
Mr. Dicks is especially concerned about cybersecurity.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 3.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by title IV of 
     this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available 
     for ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', by 
     reducing the amount made available for ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', by reducing the 
     amount made available for ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Air Force'', by reducing the amount made 
     available for ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', and by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense'', by $93,811,660, 
     $177,989,500, $263,131,960, $193,248,650, and $1,912,920, 
     respectively.

  Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. The amendment would reduce each of the Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation accounts by 1 percent, or roughly 
$730 million below the currently appropriated $73 billion provided in 
this measure.
  Amendments of this sort have been offered to other Defense-related 
measures recently, though they have attempted to cut amounts far 
greater than what I am proposing. During one of these debates, the 
chairman of the Defense Subcommittee made the point that ``if you are 
going to reduce the defense budget, there ought to be a good reason.'' 
I agree. And I submit that both the severity of the fiscal situation we 
face and the consequences of inaction are compelling reasons to reduce 
the defense budget along with everything else.
  The Appropriations Committee started a positive trend when, during 
the consideration of appropriations for fiscal year 2011, it reduced 
the RDT&E accounts below the levels that have been funded in recent 
years.

[[Page 10632]]

  I applaud the committee for taking a serious look at these and other 
accounts and for acting accordingly, but I think we need to do better. 
We're going to have to get used to cutting defense budgets here if 
we're going to get our fiscal situation in order.
  The defense budget accounts for roughly half of the discretionary 
spending that is considered during the regular appropriations process 
during the year. According to the Domenici-Rivlin Commission 
``Restoring America's Future,'' RDT&E budgets have increased from $49.2 
billion in fiscal year 2001 to $80.2 billion in fiscal year 2010.
  So you are seeing an amount of about 80 percent higher now than they 
were in just 2001. That is a 63 percent increase. I'm getting my math 
wrong here. That report also suggested reducing the RDT&E budget would 
``impose greater discipline in research investments.''
  In addition, Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center argues in an essay in 
Foreign Affairs magazine that the RDT&E budget should be reduced, 
saying that ``it would be safe to cut it, too, by 19 percent between 
fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2018. Such a reduction would yield $87 
billion in savings while keeping the United States' level of military 
R&D far above any other country.''
  I'm not attempting to or suggesting that we make cuts that deep in 
these accounts with this amendment. I recognize that they have already 
taken a sizeable hit in fiscal year 11. I also know that my colleagues 
will come to the floor and tout the values of these accounts. They'll 
talk about and highlight important successes we've achieved with 
weapons and other systems that wouldn't have been possible without 
these accounts. I recognize that.
  But if we're all going to have to get used to voting for cuts in 
defense, cutting 1 percent of the $73 billion made available to RDT&E 
is far from Draconian and will not preclude any such future successes.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The allocation for the Defense bill has already been 
reduced by $9 billion. Funding for the research and development title 
of the bill has been reduced from the 2011 level by nearly $2 billion. 
Further reductions risk harming critical technology development needed 
to keep current weapons relevant and needed to develop next generation 
weapons and technologies required to maintain the U.S. edge in military 
technologies.
  The reduction would adversely affect many systems now in development, 
including the Joint Strike Fighter, where we certainly do not want to 
fall behind, advanced submarine development, the long-range strike 
program, missile defense program, further development of precision 
weapons systems and many others.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman mentioned that this defense budget is cut $7 
billion below?
  Mr. DICKS. Nine billion below the President's request.
  Mr. FLAKE. That's below the President's request, not below the 
budget----
  Mr. DICKS. Last year we were $17 billion below last year, $9 billion 
this year. So we're making some serious cuts in this budget.
  Mr. FLAKE. I just appreciate that this is not the most ridiculous 
amendment. I'm glad that threshold was reached.
  Mr. DICKS. No. This one won't make the top 10.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. We're working the list up, so I will share it with the 
gentleman down in the gym.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.
  I invite the ranking member to enter into a colloquy with me on an 
important health issue for our military.
  Taking more lives each year than breast, prostate, colon and 
pancreatic cancers combined, today's lung cancer death toll is beyond 
unacceptable. It is the leading cause of cancer death among men and 
women across every racial and ethnic group and has a very low 5-year 
survival rate of only 15 percent. And this situation can be attributed 
to both resource limitations in programs dedicated to lung cancer 
research and the absence of a coordinated and comprehensive plan to 
reduce lung cancer mortality in this Nation by focusing on the entire 
lung cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and care continuum.
  Today, 80 percent of new lung cancer cases affect people who neither 
have smoked or those who have quit smoking, many of them decades ago.

                              {time}  2000

  This is true of smokers and nonsmokers, and those populations such as 
racial and ethnic minorities, women, and low-income Americans who are 
disproportionately affected by lung cancer. But it is especially the 
case for our brave men and women who defend this Nation and put 
themselves in harm's way to protect our freedom.
  Veterans, whose service has put them at high risk for lung cancer, 
have lung cancer needs that have been and remain unmet. They also 
suffer from a higher incidence of lung cancer and mortality than 
nonveterans. Additionally, the rate of lung cancer is nearly twice as 
high among those in the military compared to the larger U.S. 
population.
  As a physician, I know that success against lung cancer requires that 
we approach lung cancer comprehensively, just as we do other major 
illnesses. Prevention and wellness, coupled with early detection, 
treatment options, and research must be adequately funded and 
coordinated, just as we do for heart disease, breast cancer, HIV/AIDS, 
and others. That is why I introduced H.R. 1394, the Lung Cancer 
Mortality Reduction Act of 2011. We must coordinate activities that 
combat lung cancer in vulnerable populations, including our active 
military, and ensure that for them, as well as for others, that early 
detection, treatment, and research is adequately supported with 
benchmarks to gauge progress.
  We owe it to our Nation's heroes to coordinate early screening, 
treatment, and care, and reduce lung cancer mortality among members of 
the Armed Forces and our veterans, whose exposure to carcinogens during 
active duty service is a known contributor to their increased lung 
cancer risk.
  I would seek the help of the ranking member to pursue this work in 
the Defense Health Program within the Department of Defense.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I will work with the gentlelady on DOD lung cancer 
research. We have $10.2 million in the budget this year, and money for 
other forms of cancer and treatment efforts, in light of the serious 
problems facing military members. This is a very serious problem, and I 
am glad that you have called it to our attention, and I look forward to 
working with you on this important issue.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 10633]]




             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois

  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to research, develop, manufacture, or procure a newly 
     designed flight suit or integrated aircrew ensemble.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, there is no bigger 
supporter, I don't think, in this body of the Air Force than me. I am 
an Air National Guard pilot. I have been an Air National Guard pilot 
for awhile now, and continue to be even during my service in Congress. 
But part of what we have to do in this body is we have to find areas of 
essential versus nonessential spending.
  One of those areas I believe that is nonessential is $100 million 
that will be spent, if this amendment is not adopted, to develop a new 
flight suit, in essence. I think at a time when we are looking at 
supporting defense as best we can and finding out areas where we can 
prioritize and make that essential, I think it is important to stop the 
design of this flight suit and allow that money to be spent in other 
areas.
  We have met with the folks that are developing this, that are looking 
at the idea of this new flight suit, and I am still convinced that the 
right thing to do at this time is to halt the development and 
manufacture of this.
  So I would just stand and urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, the committee would like to thank 
the gentleman from Illinois for his service in the Air National Guard, 
and obviously his service in Congress. The gentleman from Illinois has 
made a compelling argument, and we are prepared to accept his 
amendment. However, we want to be clear that we will continue to study 
the issue as we support the continued advancement of the safety of all 
of our pilots. We just want to make that understood. It needs more 
study. We are in support of your amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. The amendment would prohibit DOD from developing or 
manufacturing a newly designed flight suit for members of the Armed 
Forces. In November of 2010, the Air Force awarded a $99.4 million 
contract over 7 years to research, develop, and manufacture the flight 
suit. The November award ended a nearly 3-year competitive bidding 
process.
  The Air Force requires that the new flight suit must protect airmen 
from flames, all kinds of weather, chemical attacks or radiation, and 
high gravity that can cause air members to black out. So I urge 
rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Chair, there is no bigger supporter 
in this body of the Air Force than me. For nearly ten years, I have 
been privileged to serve my country in the Air Force and Air National 
Guard as a pilot. During that time I often thought, ``If I am willing 
to fight for my country on the outside, I must be willing to defend and 
preserve our country for future generations on the inside.'' Today I 
rise in support of my amendment to the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, H.R. 2219. My amendment would save the U.S. 
taxpayers nearly $100 million by not allowing the Air Force to 
redevelop the current flight suit.
  Since coming to this House, my colleagues and I have been working 
diligently to determine essential versus non-essential government 
spending projects. One area I wanted to examine more closely was a $100 
million project to develop a new flight suit for the Air Force, called 
the ``Integrated Aircrew Ensemble.'' This flight suit is not being 
developed in response to specific needs of the Air Force's next-
generation fighter, the F-35 Lightning II. Rather, it is designed to 
integrate the already existing protections which are included in our 
current flight suit.
  In February, at the Air Force's 2012 budget hearing, Chief of Staff 
General Norton Schwartz was asked--at my request--whether the Air Force 
was developing a new flight suit. General Schwartz stated, ``We are not 
in the business of redesigning our flight suit under the current 
circumstances.'' Since his testimony, General Schwartz said this quote 
is ``accurate but incomplete,'' and does not represent his position on 
the flight suit contract.
  Our office met with management from TIAX LLC, the company awarded the 
contract. After reviewing the information from TIAX and speaking with 
many of my fellow pilots who fly different aircrafts, I remain 
confident that the current flight suit provides more than adequate 
protection.
  Over the past 10 years, the Air National Guard has not had a single 
G-LOC (induced loss of consciousness due to excessive G-force) Class A 
mishap, while the Air Force has had 5 G-LOC Class A mishaps. Of those 5 
Air Force Class A mishaps, 3 occurred in an F-16 aircraft, while the 
other two occurred in a T-6 and T-37, respectively. The Air Force was 
unable to provide details surrounding the T-6 and T-37 Class A mishaps; 
however, they were able to provide the details surrounding each of the 
F-16 Class A mishaps. In each of those cases, the pilot flying the F-16 
was performing Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM) under the supervision of 
an instructor pilot. It is important to note that all of these 
accidents took place in a training environment and by young pilots 
still honing their skills. In none of the executive summary reports 
surrounding those accidents was the flight suit noted as a contributing 
factor toward causing G-LOC.
  For these reasons, it is my strong belief that updating and 
integrating the flight suit will not be the panacea that proponents of 
the program claim in terms of protecting against these types of G-LOC 
Class A mishaps. Protecting against G-LOC has much more to do with the 
innate physical abilities of our pilots and the training they receive 
than any flight suit they will wear.
  These findings led me to offer an amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) to postpone the flight suit development and 
save taxpayers nearly $100 million. This amendment was adopted into the 
NDAA, which passed the House by a vote of 322-96.
  Many of my colleagues in the House support this amendment, including 
Congressman Sam Johnson (R-Texas), a twenty-nine-year Air Force 
veteran, former POW in Vietnam, former Director of the Fighter Weapons 
School and pilot with the Thunderbirds. He said, ``With men and women 
in harm's way in three different wars, the Air Force shouldn't even 
think about using scarce dollars for new flight suits.''
  My other colleague, Congressman Pete Olson (R-Texas) said, ``As a 
former Navy Aviator, I know firsthand that our current flight suits 
provide all of the protection and comfort our aviators need. Our nation 
is facing record debt and deficits and as such, we must apply careful 
scrutiny over every new project we are looking to fund. If I thought 
for one second that our pilots were in danger, I would be the first to 
support a new flight suit, but the reality is that this is a $100M 
solution looking for a problem.''
  Senator Kirk (R-IL) also stated, ``While nothing takes precedence 
over protecting and arming our troops in the field, we still have a 
responsibility to protect taxpayers from excessive spending. Given our 
current fiscal situation, we must make tough decisions to ensure that 
tax dollars are spent efficiently--even at the Pentagon. Cutting a $100 
million program the Air Force says it does not need is exactly the kind 
of spending restraint the American people want to see from Congress.''
  Make no mistake, I am committed to ensuring our military is the 
strongest and best equipped in the world. However, we must make tough 
decisions with regard to military needs and military wants. I was sent 
to Washington to make difficult decisions, even those that require the 
military to prioritize its spending.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page 10634]]

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  It is the policy of the United States to withdraw 
     all United States Armed Forces and military contractors from 
     Iraq by December 31, 2011, and no provision of any agreement 
     between the United States and Iraq that amends the timeline 
     for such withdrawal in a manner that obligates the United 
     States to a security commitment to respond to internal or 
     external threats against Iraq after such date shall be in 
     force with respect to the United States unless the agreement 
     is in the form of a treaty requiring the advice and consent 
     of the Senate (or is intended to take that form in the case 
     of an agreement under negotiation) or is specifically 
     authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  Ms. LEE (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
consider the amendment as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Ms. LEE (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
consider the amendment as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I am pleased that my colleagues, 
Representatives Nadler and Woolsey, are joining me in offering an 
amendment that make it the policy of the United States to withdraw all 
members of the United States Armed Forces and military contractors from 
Iraq by the end of this year.
  More importantly, this amendment also clarifies that this timeline 
cannot be changed unless it is in the form of a treaty requiring the 
advice and consent of the Senate or unless authorized by an act of 
Congress.
  We must ensure that 45,000 United States troops who remain in Iraq, 
and our military contractors, leave Iraq at the end of this year, as is 
stated in our Nation's Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq.
  This is of concern because this week the President and some of his 
advisers are considering just how many troops they can leave behind. 
Senators and others are publicizing their opinions. Senator McCain of 
Arizona has suggested 10,000 to 13,000 troops remain to serve for 
support in intelligence arenas, as air support, and as a peacekeeping 
force. Others may eventually call for even more to remain. At the same 
time, the Government of Iraq is feeling pressured on multiple sides to 
either ask us to stay or to ensure our departure. As one of the 
original founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, along with Congresswoman 
Maxine Waters and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, our position has been 
clear all along--we opposed the war and the occupation from the start, 
and we have worked day in and day out to end it.
  We believe that ending the occupation of Iraq means withdrawing all 
troops--and we mean all troops--and all military contractors out of 
Iraq. It would be unacceptable to have troops remaining in Iraq after 
December 31, 2011, unless of course there was a treaty or an act of 
Congress. Leaving troops would hurt U.S. national security interests by 
adding credence to insurgents' narrative about the U.S. being a 
permanent occupying force. America's interests in Iraq and the region 
will be best served by eliminating our military presence and making 
greater use of our Nation's assets, including diplomacy, 
reconciliation, commerce, development assistance, and humanitarian aid. 
And we have already said in policy that there shall be no permanent 
military bases in Iraq.
  Iraqis must be responsible for the security of Iraq, which they have 
demonstrated more and more as we have been pulling out of their 
country. The American people have no interest in extending our presence 
in Iraq, and they are looking to Congress to ensure that we bring our 
troops home and focus the savings on the challenges facing our Nation 
today.
  Furthermore, we need to ensure that if any security commitment is 
required, that such commitment be established by a treaty or an act of 
Congress.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2010


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The Chair will rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California proposes to 
express a legislative sentiment of the House.
  As such, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is 
not in order.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the spending reduction 
     amount), insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds made available by this Act may be used for any account 
     of the Department of Defense (other than accounts excluded by 
     subsection (b)) in excess of the amount made available for 
     such account for fiscal year 2011, unless the financial 
     statements of the Department for fiscal year 2011 are 
     validated as ready for audit within 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Accounts Excluded.--The following accounts are excluded 
     from the prohibition in subsection (a):
       (1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National 
     Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
       (2) The Defense Health Program account.
       (c) Validation Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``validation'', with respect to the auditability of financial 
     statements, means a determination, following an examination, 
     that the financial statements comply with generally accepted 
     accounting principles and applicable laws and regulations and 
     reflect reliable internal controls.
       (d) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) with 
     respect to a component or program of the Department if the 
     President certifies that applying the subsection to that 
     component or program would harm national security or members 
     of the Armed Forces who are in combat.

  Ms. LEE (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I join my esteemed colleague Ms. Jan Schakowsky 
from Illinois in offering an amendment that hits at the heart of the 
issue of fiscal responsibility.
  This amendment would freeze Department of Defense programs at fiscal 
year 2011 levels unless the financial statements of the Department of 
Defense for fiscal year 2011 are ready to be audited in 6 months from 
the date of enactment. However, this amendment would exempt military 
personnel, Reserve and National Guard personnel accounts as well as the 
Defense Health Program account from this potential funding freeze. It 
also contains a waiver for any potential harm to national security or 
combat forces.
  In these financial times, which are very difficult as we all know, 
more and more people are learning of the importance of keeping to a 
budget and of being able to track where every single

[[Page 10635]]

penny goes of their paychecks, if they have paychecks. For too many 
Americans right now, survival boils down to appropriately spending and 
saving every dollar and every cent that they have and budgeting what 
little money they have left.
  Sadly, the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Government 
Accountability Office have documented that the Defense Department 
cannot tell the American taxpayers how their money is being spent. That 
really is quite shocking. We cannot wait any longer for the books to be 
audited. This requirement first came down in 1990, and over the years, 
this requirement that they keep the books that can be checked over has 
been pushed back to 2017. Already the Department of Defense has stated 
that they need an extension.
  How many times do we turn our backs on agencies in their spending 
money without being able to account for it? How many more stories of 
expensive ashtrays and overpriced hammers do we need to have before we 
begin to deal with this in an effective way?
  The bloated Pentagon budget, filled with waste, fraud and abuse, must 
be able to be audited. The American people expect to know where our 
defense dollars are going. They pay for this Defense Department, and 
they expect Congress to be the watchdog of these agencies. In fact, I 
believe that it is critical that the Department of Defense not only be 
ready for an audit but be able to actually pass an audit.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, be fiscally 
responsible and hold the Pentagon accountable to get its financial 
books in order. We require that of the business sector, of the private 
sector. We require that of our own family budgets. Why in the world 
don't we require that of the Pentagon where so many of our hard-earned 
tax dollars are being spent? We should freeze their spending, freeze 
their budget, until we know what they're doing with their money. An 
audit is a very reasonable request, and I hope that the other side 
understands that this really is in the spirit of fiscal responsibility 
and in helping to ensure that the Pentagon's books are in order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of 
order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language conferring 
authority.
  The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


               Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Huelskamp

  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement the curriculum of the Chaplain Corps 
     Tier 1 DADT repeal training dated April 11, 2011.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I rise this evening to ensure that 
America's military bases are not used to advance a narrow social 
agenda.
  Earlier this year, the Navy chief of chaplains announced that 
military chaplains who desire to perform same-sex marriages would be 
allowed to do so following the repeal of the policy known as Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell. The directive said that chaplains could perform same-sex 
ceremonies in such States where such marriages and unions are legal. 
Apparently, the Navy has recently backed away from such instruction, 
but tepidly and weakly, and in a way that leaves the door open to the 
reinstatement of this policy.
  This amendment I offer will prohibit the enforcement of the directive 
of allowing chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on Navy bases 
regardless of whatever a State's law is on gay marriage.
  In thinking about what has made our military successful, two things 
come to my mind: conformity and uniformity. Men and women who join our 
military are to conform to the military's standards, not the other way 
around. Regardless of where a ship is docked or where a plane is 
parked, our servicemembers know what to anticipate and how to behave. 
Rules and expectations are the same everywhere, but with a policy that 
is flexible and changes based on the State, the military doesn't 
embrace its one-size-fits-all mentality that has made it so 
accomplished, disciplined and orderly. As the Navy and other military 
branches prepare for the repeal of this 1993 law, hours upon hours of 
sensitivity training have been presented to men and women in uniform. 
Such instruction has included warning that the failure to embrace 
alternative lifestyles could result in penalties for servicemembers.
  What will happen to chaplains who decline to officiate over same-sex 
ceremonies? The directive states that chaplains ``may'' perform same-
sex civil marriage ceremonies. I fear that chaplains who refuse to 
perform these ceremonies may find themselves under attack and their 
careers threatened.
  Madam Chair, we must ensure the religious liberty of all military 
members, particularly that of chaplains. In my family, I've had a 
military chaplain who has served for more than approximately 4 decades, 
so this is particularly important to me, personally.
  Regardless of how someone feels about the repeal of the policy known 
as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I think we can all agree that instructing 
military chaplains that they can perform same-sex marriages goes above 
and beyond the instruction to repeal that particular law. In fact, this 
directive is not only an overreach of the repeal but is also a direct 
assault on the Defense of Marriage Act. It should be noted these two 
laws passed with bipartisan support and were signed into law by 
Democrat President Bill Clinton. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell was 
supposed to be about allowing people in the military to serve openly, 
not about promoting same-sex marriage in contravention of the Defense 
of Marriage Act.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment in order 
to promote and ensure conformity and uniformity in the military 
culture, not the other way around; to promote the religious liberty of 
military chaplains; and to promote consistency with Federal laws on 
marriage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to any amendment that seeks to delay 
the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Some in the majority continue to 
try to legislate this issue even though the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support in December.
  As of last month, more than 1 million U.S. servicemembers--roughly 
half of our Armed Forces--have been trained on the new law allowing 
gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Our military 
leaders, lead by Admiral Mullen, have stated that they have seen no 
adverse impact on the force and that training is going very well. The 
current expectation is that all members of the active and reserve 
military force will be trained by mid-August.
  Last month, Secretary Gates indicated in an interview with the 
Associated Press that he sees no roadblocks

[[Page 10636]]

to ending the ban on openly gay military service. Current Secretary 
Panetta said that he would work closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
to assess whether the elements for certification in the law are met 
before approving the repeal.
  Our servicemembers deserve the right to serve their country no matter 
their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Currently, gay and lesbian 
servicemembers are forced to live under the constant threat of being 
forced out of the military because of the misguided Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell. I urge my colleagues to reject any amendment that seeks to delay 
implementation.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment strikes a very dangerous 
precedent for Congress to somehow micromanage the training processes of 
military chaplains.
  We have military chaplains from diverse faith backgrounds. We have 
many faiths--in fact, the majority of faiths that, for instance, don't 
sanctify gay marriage. We have other faiths. The one that I happen to 
belong to--I am a member of a reformed Jewish faith--and there are many 
other Christian faiths, including the Episcopalian faith, which do 
sanction same-sex unions. Likewise, it's an important part of chaplain 
training that they're allowed to counsel against, for instance, 
homosexual acts or extramarital heterosexual acts. That's a part of 
chaplaincy training as well. For Congress to interfere with the 
military processes of chaplaincy training is absurd and unprecedented.
  With regard to this particular training program, I would like to ask 
my friend from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), if I could just yield a moment 
to him, if he has read this particular training manual that he is 
seeking to defund here.
  I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Yes, if the gentleman would restate his question.
  Mr. POLIS. Has the gentleman from Kansas read the training manual 
that he is seeking to defund in this case?
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, that is an excellent question.
  We tried to obtain a copy of that from the Department of Defense 
today and they refused to provide a copy. What I do have is an online 
three-page summary of the manual.
  Mr. POLIS. So, reclaiming my time, I think that the straight answer 
is no. In fact, our ranking member and others have been unable to get 
that from the Navy Liaison's Office.
  Again, I think it's an offense to the military to second-guess their 
training for chaplains. No doubt those documents could eventually come 
our way--and should, for oversight activities--but for us to somehow 
defund the training of chaplains to implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
makes no sense.
  Again, chaplains will be worried. For instance, Catholic chaplains 
will be worried to advise their followers that homosexuality is a sin 
if that is not included in the training. Those for whom homosexuality 
is not a sin will also likewise be worried about advising the troops. 
There will be a void, a huge void--to not train the spiritual advisors 
to members of our military about the implementation of Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell? I mean, why not try to not train any of the troops? I mean, 
again, whether you supported it or not, I think most of us believe that 
it was better that there was a training process than, let's say, a 
court has ordered--which has now happened absent a training process and 
instantaneous change.
  With regard to the chaplaincy, to second-guess an internal military 
training document--again, which they have indicated that they will 
revise accordingly--is to show a huge lack of judgment of the men and 
women who run the military, an enormous lack of confidence in the 
institution of the chaplaincy, an offense to the chaplaincy of the 
military to somehow deign that Congress is expressing that they should 
not be trained regarding a major military policy, that they should 
somehow take the risk on their own, that they should worry about 
advising members of their faith with regard to, within their faith 
tradition, whether homosexuality is a sin or not, regarding members of 
their faith as to whether they can be married or not.
  This is a diverse country religiously, and likewise the institution 
of our military reflects that diversity. And to somehow, again, second-
guess a military training document that hasn't even been read by the 
prime sponsor of this amendment shows a tremendous lack of faith and is 
a very dangerous precedence for Congress in terms of interfering with 
the training procedures of the military.
  We could, of course, as a body or as individual Members, go through 
every single training manual and find things we like, find things we 
don't like. But again, to micromanage the military to that extent, 
particularly in light of a policy change which has ramifications for 
the chaplaincy.
  The chaplaincy is, by and large, where the rubber meets the road with 
regard to how individual members are being advised about their sexual 
orientation, about what behaviors are moral and what behaviors are 
immoral. And to somehow say that Congress will tell the chaplaincy not 
to train anybody on implementing this policy change leaves our soldiers 
in a spiritual lurch. It leaves our Christian soldiers in a spiritual 
lurch. It leaves our Jewish soldiers in a spiritual lurch, our Muslim 
soldiers in a spiritual lurch, all of those who take advantage of the 
good offices of the chaplaincy in the military, just as, of course, we 
have a chaplain in this fine institution, the United States Congress.
  So, again, this is a change that perhaps many members of the 
chaplaincy were not in favor of--some were; it depends on their faith 
position, their own political opinions--but they need to be trained in 
accordance with military protocols, and this amendment would gut that. 
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2219.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay a contractor under a contract with the 
     Department of Defense for costs of any amount paid by the 
     contractor or subcontractor to an employee performing work 
     under the contract for compensation if the compensation of 
     the employee for a fiscal year exceeds the rate payable for 
     level I of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 
     5, United States Code, regardless of the contract funding 
     source.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, the highest individual government salary 
funded by the American taxpayer is that of the President of the United 
States at a total of $400,000, or so I thought. The President is 
certainly the highest paid public servant, but it turns out that the 
leader of the free world isn't actually the highest paid executive on 
the taxpayers' payroll.
  In fact, the highest Federal Government salaries by far can be earned 
by private sector executives who are paid up to $700,000 per year 
directly in taxpayer dollars. I do not mean executives who earn their 
multibillion-dollar incomes by selling often overpriced and

[[Page 10637]]

 underperforming equipment to our men and women in uniform, though the 
customer is the Federal Government. Those salaries are paid through 
transactions in the private sector. No, I am talking about the Federal 
Government salaries paid directly by the Pentagon and other agencies to 
private contractor executives, direct salaries paid for 100 percent by 
taxpayer dollars.
  You won't find these exorbitant pay rates on government income lists. 
They certainly aren't subject to the current Federal employee pay and 
hiring freeze.

                              {time}  2030

  In fact, that $700,000 maximum salary increases every year to reach 
even greater heights even as we contemplate cutting other areas of our 
budget to new lows, including that of our military service branches.
  These salaries are being paid by a department that has not been able 
to pass a standard audit in its entire history. It cannot even tell us 
how many contractors are on its payroll.
  Madam Chair, the salary of a typical Army private starts at a meager 
$20,000 per year. General Petraeus, a four-star general with 37 years 
of active service, the commander of the international coalition in 
Afghanistan and the next director of the CIA, earns a salary of 
approximately $180,000. The Secretary of Defense earns about $200,000. 
How then can we justify salaries of up to $700,000 for defense 
contractor executives?
  I understand that there may be contractors who supply services to our 
Nation that our government cannot perform on its own. However, I am 
also absolutely certain that there is no one single private contractor 
whose value to our national security is twice that of the Commander in 
Chief of the United States military.
  At a time when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is telling us that 
the Nation's debt is the number one threat facing America, we cannot 
continue using taxpayer dollars to pay lavish and unjustifiable private 
contractor salaries that are more than triple the pay of our military 
leadership.
  My amendment simply states that funds in this bill will not be used 
to pay a Federal Government salary for any individual defense 
contractor that exceeds the salary of the Secretary of Defense. That 
salary is level 1 of the executive schedule, or about $200,000.
  This is a very modest reform. It is not about limiting contracts or 
contract spending more broadly. It does not deal with outsourcing or 
insourcing. It does not, in fact, cap contractor pay, which may include 
private sector projects, profit sharing, or other earnings. It merely 
deals with the salary paid to contractors directly by the taxpayer, 
limiting the cost of that compensation in an effort to reduce the 
deficit and stop paying exorbitant Federal salaries to private sector 
employees.
  I think this amendment forms a perfect complement to section 8050 of 
the underlying bill, which deals with limiting contractor bonuses. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and other 
modest simple reforms that can help us tackle the deficit.
  With that, I thank you, Madam Chair.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of 
order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination of the amount of compensation of certain employees.
  The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our distinguished chairman.
  I think we agree that it is vitally important to save money in the 
Joint Strike Fighter Program where it is possible to do so without 
negatively impacting performance or schedule. The Joint Program Office 
and the services which will use the Joint Strike Fighter are to be 
commended for any efforts to identify potential reductions in program 
costs. As an example, the Air Force is currently in the process of 
validating an earlier internal study of ejection seat options for its 
variant of the aircraft.
  Would the chairman agree that if studies like this one make a sound 
business case that savings will result, then the Air Force's judgment 
about how its aircraft can be made more cost effectively equipped 
should be informed by that conclusion?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I agree with him that we should consider all options for cost 
savings. Should the Air Force present the committee with a study that 
indicates potential cost savings in the ejection seat without 
compromising the F-35's performance or schedule, we will certainly look 
hard at that.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him 
on this and other matters in our oversight of the Joint Strike Fighter 
Program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to maintain an end strength level of members of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States assigned to permanent duty 
     in Europe in excess of 30,000 members, and the amounts 
     otherwise provided by this Act for ``Military Personnel, 
     Army'', ``Military Personnel, Navy'', ``Military Personnel, 
     Marine Corps'', and ``Military Personnel, Air Force'' in 
     title I of division A are hereby reduced by $433,966,500, 
     $41,380,000, $6,700,000, and $330,915,000, respectively.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Given the ongoing budget negotiations, we need to explore 
all options for reducing wasteful spending, and I think we have an easy 
one in front of us in this amendment.
  Before we ask the American people to accept painful cuts or accept 
tax increases, we have an opportunity here to get defense spending 
under control in a way that does not jeopardize or harm our national 
security. If we're serious about deficit reduction, we need to do 
something about the defense budget, and we can do it in a responsible 
way that doesn't hurt our national security. My amendment would do 
that.
  By reducing some of the 80,000 troops in Europe where they're no 
longer needed, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars. So what my 
amendment would do very simply is reduce the total number of troops 
stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000, which is more than enough to 
continue to support our ongoing operations in Libya and Iraq and our 
responsibilities to NATO for those Members who support them. For those 
who don't, this is not a proxy for those battles. We don't want to cut 
the troop levels so low we can't support those operations.
  It will allow the DOD to save money by closing those bases that are 
no longer needed. By pulling 50,000 troops out of Western Europe and 
closing bases, we can save money, reduce our redundant military force, 
and CBO has scored the savings of this amendment as over $800 million.
  On top of the savings produced by reducing our troop level, my 
amendment

[[Page 10638]]

would allow us to station troops in the U.S., instead of Europe, where 
it's 10 to 20 percent less expensive. It would allow the Pentagon to 
close bases across Europe that, frankly, are relics of World War II and 
the Cold War.
  The U.S. taxpayer didn't sign up to indefinitely defend our wealthy 
Western European allies from a nonexistent threat. These bases cost 
U.S. taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. On top of that, 
they're often unpopular with the local people of the countries they are 
located in.
  Our European allies are some of the richest countries in the world, 
so why are we subsidizing their defense spending? Our European allies 
have enjoyed a free ride on the American dime for too long. Today, our 
European allies spend an average of about 2 percent of GDP on defense, 
while America spends 4 to 5 percent. That means the average American 
spends $2,500 on defense; the average European, $500 on defense.
  Now, if Europe feels they are under a military threat, first of all, 
I would like to hear whom it's from. It's not clear who's about to 
attack France or Germany. But if Europe does feel they're under a 
threat, they can afford to spend more on defense, and we can be 
confident that we can spend less on their defense. We cannot afford to 
subsidize the defense of France and Germany from an unknown and 
unidentified threat.
  This amendment does not signal a weakening in our commitment to NATO. 
With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly across 
the globe into theaters of operation. We retain sufficient presence in 
Europe with 30,000 troops for our joint training responsibilities under 
NATO. There is simply no need to have nearly 100,000 troops.
  It's time to rethink our defense spending. We're not under threat by 
the Nazis. We're not under threat by the Soviets. Terrorism is a real 
threat. It's an amorphous threat that's not bound by nations or states, 
and, in fact, it does not have its main nexus in Western Europe. 
Maintaining bases in Europe is simply not a sane or rational response 
to this threat, nor is it fiscally responsible.

                              {time}  2040

  Even Donald Rumsfeld thinks it's time for a change of policy. In his 
recent book, he wrote: ``Of the quarter million troops deployed abroad 
in 2001, more than 100,000 were in Europe, the vast majority stationed 
in Germany to fend off an invitation by a Soviet Union that no longer 
existed.''
  These cuts proposed in my amendment are part of the recommendations 
of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a bipartisan project. The 
Sustainable Defense Task Force brought together defense experts from 
across the ideological spectrum and proposed commonsense 
recommendations for saving taxpayers' money without jeopardizing our 
national defense, and that's exactly what this is, common sense.
  At a time when we must seriously consider cuts to wasteful government 
spending, we should not continue to subsidize the defense of wealthy 
European nations against a nonexistent Nazi threat, a nonexistent 
Soviet threat. Let's get serious here. We can start by reducing our 
military presence in Europe, which will save the American people 
hundreds of millions of dollars while protecting our national security 
interests.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman from Colorado offered a similar 
amendment to the 2012 national defense authorization bill earlier this 
year, and it failed by a vote of 96-323. He offered a similar amendment 
during consideration of H.R. 1 earlier this year, which failed by a 
vote of 74-351. The setting of our military end strengths is not 
something that should be done lightly. In fact, this is the sole 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. They are responsible 
for setting military personnel end strengths, and the levels that would 
be set by this amendment are significantly below those in the House-
passed 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.
  For that and many other reasons, I am opposed to this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to purchase non-combat vehicles for use outside of 
     the United States if such vehicles are not substantially 
     manufactured in the United States (as defined in the Defense 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement).

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Since 2003, the Defense Department reports that it has spent 
approximately $1.3 billion to buy non-combat vehicles from foreign 
vehicle manufacturers.
  Now you may ask, why is that? We have a law on the books that's 
called the Buy American Act, and it generally requires that when we are 
buying items for use by the U.S. military and they are available here 
in the United States that they should be bought from U.S. companies. It 
makes a lot of sense. If we're going to be spending billions of dollars 
in taxpayer money, we should make sure that it goes to fund U.S. 
manufacturers and U.S. jobs.
  But here's the problem. There are a number of loopholes, a growing 
number of exceptions to the Buy America law. The biggest is this one. 
One of the exceptions says that if you are buying a particular good for 
use outside of the United States, you don't have to comply with the Buy 
America clause at all. Well, that becomes a pretty enormous, truck-
sized loophole when we are fighting two wars abroad, because much of 
what we are purchasing goes immediately to foreign companies.
  So you have a situation where non-combat vehicles, light trucks, 
ambulances, buses, motorcycles, vehicles that are made by a multitude 
of American manufacturers, are now being bought overseas and our 
taxpayer dollars are going to foreign European and Asian vehicle 
manufacturers and into the pockets of foreign workers.
  This is a much bigger problem than just this one category of 
spending. In fact, the DOD has spent about $36 billion in purchases 
from foreign companies for use outside of the United States. In fact, 
just this last year, there were about 38,000 waivers to the Buy America 
Act for a variety of exceptions, and over the last 4 years about 
161,000 waivers to the Buy America Act. This is a very large problem, 
as we see growing numbers of exceptions to the act. This one, though, 
is the biggest.
  And while I think we've got to pass comprehensive legislation to try 
to take on these growing waivers from the Buy America Act, this 
amendment, which I offer with my good friend Representative Peters of 
Michigan, will simply restrict the purchase of these everyday non-
combat vehicles to vehicles that are made by American workers. People 
in my State of Connecticut and around the country are out of work, and 
a $1.3 billion infusion, money that we're going to spend anyway, will 
help create jobs.

[[Page 10639]]

  To be successful in the 21st century we can't continue to cede our 
manufacturing capacity to overseas workers. The Department of Defense 
is the world's largest purchaser of many types of products and we must 
do all that we can to make sure that we're putting this money, our 
taxpayers' money to work here at home while not doing any damage to the 
mission abroad. These non-combat vehicles could easily be manufactured 
by American plants, and it's high time that we put people back to work 
here in this country. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek to speak on the point of 
order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Chair, just to quickly point out 
that is a pretty bread-and-butter, vanilla restriction on funding, as I 
understand one of the objections is that this would change the duties 
of contracting officers who now don't apply the Buy America law. In 
fact, normal course of training requirements for contracting 
specialists already educate those specialists in how to apply the Buy 
America law whether or not they currently do it today.
  I do believe for that reason that the amendment is germane.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to speak on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut proposes to change existing 
law, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  As recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 
52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from 
explicitly assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it 
implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence, or 
make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by 
law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a 
point of order under clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The proponent of a limitation assumes the burden of establishing that 
any duties imposed by the provision either are merely ministerial or 
are already required by law.
  The Chair finds that limitation proposed in the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Connecticut does not simply impose a negative 
restriction on the funds in the bill. Instead, it requires the 
officials concerned to make a determination regarding whether a certain 
item to be acquired for use outside the United States is substantially 
manufactured in the United States, a matter with which they are not 
charged under existing law.
  On these premises, the Chair concludes that the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Connecticut proposes to change existing law.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.

                              {time}  2050


                Amendment Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler

  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract that allows the contractor 
     to use amounts paid to the contractor under such contract to 
     pay a tax to the Afghan Ministry of Finance.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Chair, we are in Afghanistan right now, 
helping to rebuild, or in many cases build from scratch, 
infrastructure. And when we leave that country, and I do hope we will 
be leaving soon, we will leave that infrastructure behind, power grids, 
water systems, trained law enforcement, the building blocks of a 
functioning society. We will spend billions of dollars on improvements 
meant to better the lives of the Afghan people. We don't need to also 
pay taxes to the Afghan Government for the privilege of building or 
rebuilding their country. And that's why I am happy to bring this 
amendment to the floor tonight for consideration.
  The Department of Defense should be focused on providing soldiers in 
training, in the field, and on the front lines with the tools they need 
to protect themselves and defend our country. This amendment would 
uphold existing law and clarify existing agreements between the U.S. 
and Afghanistan prohibiting Afghanistan from taxing U.S. contractors 
doing this rebuilding work in Afghanistan.
  Now, this ban on levying taxes would also apply to all subcontractors 
that may not have direct contracts with Afghanistan. In other words, if 
a company is working on a project funded by the U.S. Department of 
Defense, whether that company is a prime contractor or a subcontractor, 
that company should not be subject to taxes from the Afghani 
Government.
  These are the contractors doing rebuilding work in Afghanistan, 
helping rebuild the Afghanis' infrastructure, and hopefully allowing 
them to one day thrive independently. Common sense and financial 
prudence says that the U.S. should not be subject to taxation for the 
rebuilding efforts it is paying for.
  Hardworking Americans send their tax dollars to Washington so that 
soldiers on the front lines have the tools they need to protect 
themselves and our country, not fill the coffers of a foreign 
government. So I urge its adoption.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like to say, Madam Chairman, that the 
gentlewoman has worked long and hard to write this amendment in such a 
way to be acceptable to the Parliamentarian, and I am very happy to 
accept her amendment and ask for its support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I am going to read this amendment: ``None of the funds 
made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract that 
allows the contractor to use amounts paid to the contractor under such 
contract to pay a tax to the Afghan Ministry of Finance.''
  I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Washington State for 
being able to work so tirelessly to get this amendment perfected. It's 
very clear what her intent is, and we are prepared on our side to 
accept this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The Secretary of Defense shall post on the public 
     website of the Department of Defense the cost to each 
     American taxpayer of each of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, 
     and Libya.


[[Page 10640]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Chair, let me begin by thanking the 
ranking member, Mr. Dicks, and his staff for all of their hard work on 
this legislation. As always, they offer great assistance and guidance 
for all Members and staff, regardless of our differences on policy. 
Thank you all for all that you do.
  Madam Chair, my amendment is very simple: It requires that the 
Department of Defense put on its Web site the costs of war to each 
American taxpayer. It is time for Americans to have a receipt for these 
10 years of war. What has it cost us? How much cold, hard cash has been 
spent?
  I have stood here time and time again and listened to debates about 
how we don't have any money. There is no money for the elderly, no 
money for the sick, no money for the poor, no money for women, no money 
for children, no money for people who lost their jobs by no fault of 
their own. It just costs too much. No money for you, or you, or you.
  But when it comes to war, war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya, 
there seems to be a bottomless pit of resources. And it is not fair; it 
is not right. We nickel and dime the people who need it most. But when 
it comes to war, there is a big fat blank check. We need to be honest 
with ourselves. We need to be honest with each other.
  Across the country, there are Americans, hardworking, taxpaying 
citizens who oppose war. They oppose their hard-earned dollars being 
sent overseas to support 10 long years of war. But let me be clear, 
Madam Chair, they do not oppose paying their taxes. They are not 
anarchists or anti-government activists. But as conscientious objectors 
to war, these Americans want their taxes invested here at home.
  They want to help provide food for the hungry, safe roads, and strong 
schools. They want Medicare and Social Security to exist for their 
parents, their children, and their grandchildren. They want their tax 
dollars to care for soldiers and their families when they return home. 
They want to see an end and a cure to cancer. They want a cure for 
AIDS. They want to see small businesses thrive and innovation become 
the engine of our economy. They want high-speed rail that rivals Europe 
and Asia. They want transit systems that are safe and get people where 
they need to go. They want government to work for them.
  Even if you do not oppose war, don't you want to know what it costs 
you and your family? It's time, Madam Chair, it's time for the 
Department of Defense to be honest with the American people. This is 
not some wild, crazy, farfetched idea. It is simple, commonsense 
transparency and good government. This amendment takes a tiny, small 
step in the right direction.
  Madam Chair, it is my hope and prayer that all of my colleagues will 
support this straightforward amendment.
  With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

                              {time}  2100

  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to speak on the point of 
order?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I wish to speak.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I made my point, and I don't have another point 
to make.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
order.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction.
  The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the 
amendment is not in order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2219) 
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________